Is Buhari’s anti-corruption war selective?

The complexity of human nature has made the lot of a leader in a democratic society unenviable. By sheer ambiance of his position, President Muhammadu Buhari has to contend with a welter of interests. Buhari, who heads the one year-old administration of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was voted into power to give the country a new direction and so a lot of meanings are read into his action or inaction. Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI looks at his anti-corruption war, saying that it has become the butt of people’s adulation or admonition.

Nigerians wake up nowadays to hear the latest in the ongoing anti-corruption crusade of President Muhammadu Buhari. Humongous figures are bandied in the media daily, as what politicians and others allegedly looted from the treasury during the immediate past administration led by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. Shock, disbelief and outrage was the initial reaction greeted the revelations. In the last one year, such revelations have become a regular fare, to the extent that even opponents of the Buhari administration have now been compelled to admit that the scale of corruption in the administration was monumental.

The present war against corruption is one of the areas where the Buhari-led administration was able to hit the ground running. This is understandable; given the President’s anti-corruption antecedents and pledges he made during the electioneering campaign. The last time Nigerians witnessed a major probe of an administration by a succeeding one was in 1984, after the fall of the Second Republic, when a Buhari-led military regime arrested and put to trial, key actors in that dispensation.

Indeed, his anti-corruption stance was the magic wand that secured Buhari the electoral victory of March 28, 2015. During the campaign, it was easy to see how corruption was established as Nigeria’s most intractable problem. Hence, the then opposition party, the All Progressive Congress (APC) vowed to deal with it head-long, if voted into office.

Since his inauguration on May 29, 2015, Buhari has taken a number of bold steps aimed at fighting corruption. They include setting up of a Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, headed by professor of law and human rights activist, Prof. Itse Sagay; and the sacking of some purportedly corrupt heads of some government agencies such as Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation, among others.

It also includes his decision to immediately enforce the Treasury Single Account (TSA) initiated by his immediate predecessor in office. President Buhari has also been junketing across the globe seeking help and signing bilateral and multilateral agreements with some countries for the repatriation of the country’s stolen wealth; one of such is the Mutual Legal Assistance on Criminal and Commercial Matters Treaty signed with the United Arabs Emirate (UAE) in January.

A can of worms

The Buhari administration’s anti-corruption war has opened a can of worms. It was through the four-member committee set up in June last year to scrutinise the accounts of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and Excess Crude Account (ECA) under the last administration that Nigerians first heard that the $2.1 billion meant for the purchase of arms to fight the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East was misappropriated by the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki.

He was in charge of coordinating the war against Boko Haram terrorists during the last administration. The probe was meant to unravel the allegation that N3.8 trillion was not remitted to the Federation Account by the NNPC between 2012 and May 2015, as well as the $2.1 billion said to have been deducted from the Excess Crude Account (ECA) without approval. Members of the panel were Governors Adams Oshiomhole (Edo), Ibrahim Dankwanbo (Gombe) Nasir el-Rufai (Kaduna) and Udom Emmanuel (Akwa Ibom).

Though the names of the corrupt officials from whom the assets were recovered were not disclosed, as the President had promised to do, the administration gave the details of looted funds recovered so far as: N78.325 billion, $185.119 million, £3.508 million and €11, 250 between May 29, 2015 and May 25, 2016. It also stated that a combination of cash and assets amounting to the following sum were recovered under interim forfeiture during the same period: N126.563 billion, $9.09 billion, £2.484 million and €303,399.

The revelations so far have raised a lot of dust. Some critics say the anti-corruption war is selective and that it is a media trial that is designed to cow the opposition. There are also allegations of impunity and the abuse of human rights in the course of the fight.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Onueze Okocha, believes the anti-corruption war is selective. His words: “It is very obvious. So far, those that have been accused, arrested and arraigned for corruption-related offences are members of the PDP. We have not lost sight of the fact that many of the party’s members defected to the APC. The former PDP members have been accused of wrongdoing, but they are untouched. I think the war is lopsided and not waged with an altruistic motive.”

But, another legal practitioner, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), said achieving objectivity in an anti-corruption war of this nature is difficult to achieve, “since it is a public policy issue, which is often influenced by some factors”.

He said: “If several people commit a crime, the state could make a decision that it wants to prosecute the mastermind and some other people who also participated in the crime, while leaving others. The state may choose somebody for prosecution for the purpose of deterrence. This is a public policy issue. So, it always comes up as to whether the government makes the right public policy choice in those they prosecute.

“I can only respond to as a lawyer. So, it is the public, which controls the government through election process that can help set agenda as to which public policy objective the government should pursue. But, generally, there is no doubt that there is a discretion power, which is given to the state to select who it wants to prosecute.

“The criminal process is inherently selective because the state has to make a public policy choice. It cannot prosecute everybody. This is because the Federal Government does not have enough resources to prosecute everybody. So, they have to select who they will prosecute and that selection will be guided by certain public policy considerations. There are always disputes as to how they arrived at those considerations. It is not unusual; it happens everywhere in the world.”

Different strokes

The consensus of observers is that while the call for the anti-corruption war to be fought with the rule of law in mind makes a lot of sense, because of occasional show of exuberance by security operatives, there is a big question mark on the allegation of selective prosecution.

Lawyer and human rights activist, Fred Agbaje, those complaining of being victimised are just whipping up sentiments. He said: “It’s time for the accused to stop putting up an alibi for the crimes they committed. If someone has been accused of corruptly enriching himself, he should go to court and defend himself, rather than putting up excuses. It is not right to whip up sentiments. I don’t buy it.

“Why did the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) not come after me? Why is it that the EFCC is going after Gov. Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State, Musliu Obanikoro and the rest? Something must have warranted that. But, you can’t sit in your house and concoct excuses. The anti-graft agencies won’t go after the innocent people.”

Members of the opposition now being prosecuted were the powerful men in the last administration who were said to have received some money from the $2.1 billion arms fund being probed. The Buhari administration has not even started probing other sectors of the economy.

This is why some observers have criticised the ongoing crusade, saying it is limited to recovery of looted funds and cannot be described as anti-corruption. For instance, newspaper columnist, Idowu Akinlotan, sees the anti-corruption war as “a battle against the symptoms of corruption, not a systemic attempt to tackle the malaise from its very roots.” In his column on July 3, 2016, titled ‘Buhari Presidency needs fresh thinking’, he said: “Had it been a well-structured battle, one that is underpinned by an uplifting, coherent and structured philosophy, the collateral damage being witnessed would have been feeble and short-lived. Had that structured philosophy been identified and enunciated, it would have led to a wider and more encompassing campaign to remake the country and put it on a sound, stable, peaceful and solid footing to compete with other nations in the 21st century.

“The anti-corruption war, which is virtually the only serious campaign being waged by the Buhari presidency, would have been just a subset of the whole, organised and executed brilliantly, perhaps more effectively and without distractions and fanfare.

Be that as it may, the allegation against the Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai, appears to be the biggest credibility test for Buhari’s fledgling anti-corruption war. Buratai is alleged to have bought two houses in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), at a cost of $1.5 million. Observers say Buratai’s defence that the revelation is a smear campaign by some groups that are not comfortable with the military’s successes against Boko Haram extremists in the Northeast evades the issue.

Human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), has urged President Buhari to sack the Buratai, if the army chief fails to voluntarily resign. Falana said despite Buratai’s commendable feat of leading the army to defeat Boko Haram in the Northeast, the war on corruption was also a must-win for the Buhari administration. The lawyer described as a “cock and bull story” the explanation by the army authorities that Buratai paid for the properties in instalments through his personal savings.

While he condemned the involvement of the Nigerian Army in defending Buratai, he said no one had yet to explain to Nigerians how an army General could manage to save $1.5m. He added, “In view of the ban on the opening and operation of foreign accounts by public officers, the Code of Conduct Bureau should be involved in the investigation. If the Chief of Army Staff does not deem it fit to resign forthwith President Buhari should not hesitate to remove him in the interest of national morality.”

Challenges

Nevertheless, Nigerians are looking forward to seeing those who looted the treasury being punished this time around, to serve as a deterrent to others. So far, no one has been convicted and the cases in court are likely to drag on for some time, as defence lawyers try to manoeuvre to get their principals off the hook.

Indeed, President Buhari has expressed fears that the nation’s judiciary may become his major headache in achieving the objective of ensuring that the country punishes bad behaviour. Speaking at a town hall meeting with Nigerians living in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, at the beginning of the year, Buhari said his travails in courts during his failed bid for the nation’s Presidency on three occasions, had convinced him that the judiciary needed urgent reforms.

Insufficient funds to prosecute the numerous cases of corruption may also constitute an obstacle in realising the objective. For instance, the Chairman, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Mr. Nta Ekpo, was reported to have cried out that the anti-graft agency had been unable to successfully carry out its statutory responsibility of fighting corruption due to insufficient funds. Nta stated this in January when he hosted members of the Senate Committee on Anti-Corruption and Financial Crimes, headed by Senator Chukwuka Utazi in his office.

The ICPC boss reportedly told his visitors that the yearly budget of his agency was insufficient to carry out its responsibilities and fight corruption. He said: “In 2015, the commission proposed N9.5 billion, but N4.9 billion was appropriated, while N4.2 billion was released. Note the differentials between the amount budgeted and actual release. If the anti-corruption agencies of government are starved of funds, how can this administration win the war against the monster?”